[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
- From: Brendan Macmillan <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (xml-dev)
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:36:12 +1000 (EST)
> > The technology is no different, practically, to CORBA. Nothing will really
> change, just a new set of tools will be sold, is all :-)
> In practical terms, SOAP and XML-RPC are different from CORBA because the
> technology is so bare-bones that it can be understood and deployed in a
> couple of hours by anyone with a modest scripting background. That's why
> it's catching on.
Has anyone published a point-by-point comparison between CORBA and SOAP/XML-RPC?
Obviously, using XML makes it human readable; but I think the biggest
difference is that the latter two are merely method invocation (and that's
*easy*); while CORBA implements "remote objects", and the horror of issues like
maintaining state, remote memory management etc and so on.
Have I got that right?
Stateful objects turned out to scale terribly, so it was all a waste of effort
anyway. The simpler, less powerful approach of mere method invocation is
actually much better.
In principle, web services are no different from any other TCP/IP service (like
ping, telnet, ftp, etc etc etc) except that they use XML, and have a more
general way of specifying the method to be invoked... whereas CORBA is (was?)
*much* more ambitious.
It's a bit like how Java simplified the pointers of C, and the OO of C++, to
make something that was a *lot* simpler and less error prone, and (by the 80-20
rule) sufficiently powerful 80% of the time...
But I really would like to see a point-by-point comparison, if anyone has done
one, or knows of one (or would like to do one now). ;-)
e: email@example.com v: +61 (3) 9905 1502
Email is checked daily Phone is rarely attended